Could the Western Bloc have gone authoritarian during the Cold War?

[TerranGames]

Okay, to try and get back on topic, let me rephrase my question: Are there any post-1945 PODs that could have led to a dramatic degradation in civil rights, the rule of law, political pluralism, and the electoral process in the core western powers? (Meaning much worse than today.)

(Aside from May 58, of course.)

 

[Sam R.]

The post-war IRA took a long time to get around to a mainland campaign; despite another poster's informed opinion on this matter what I will say is: because too much of the IRAs were either sane, or fixated on violence in the north. Have the even less sane come to an early conclusion of taking their war to the City. Say just after Britain has discovered Malayan policing.

 

[Seandineen]

If that happened Ian Paisley would receive lauds as the great anti-terror leader. If he has any sense, he will cool the rhetoric.

 

[Seandineen]

Okay, to try and get back on topic, let me rephrase my question: Are there any post-1945 PODs that could have led to a dramatic degradation in civil rights, the rule of law, political pluralism, and the electoral process in the core western powers? (Meaning much worse than today.)

(Aside from May 58, of course.)

What if Italy's 72 coup attempt worked? Fascinating to wonder just how much authoritarianism could be created. Would it be similar to Junta Greece, or Salazar's Estate Nuvo?

 

[Catalunya]

Okay, to try and get back on topic, let me rephrase my question: Are there any post-1945 PODs that could have led to a dramatic degradation in civil rights, the rule of law, political pluralism, and the electoral process in the core western powers? (Meaning much worse than today.)

(Aside from May 58, of course.)

- the PCI-PSI win the 1948 Italian election, and an American-backed coup led by Junio Valerio Borghese re-establishes a fascist state.
- a stronger French Left could also cause a right-wing military coup in France (May ‘46 referendum gets a majority, and it leads to a PCF-SFIO government with a lot more rights and influence given to the colonies, which is just too much for the right-wing generals).
- the Netherlands has already been discussed here.
- Belgium nearly tore itself apart over the Royal Question. You could have the Flemish and the Royal House just say ‘fuck it’, and crush a few Walloon/Trotskyist skulls.
- if all of this where to happen, West Germany would be a mess anyway, but a different leader of the German centre-right is another way to achieve it. You can also have the NPD enter parliament in ‘69, and form a coalition with the Union, or have the latter win a majority, and push through FPTP, which would ensure one-party domination by them.
- as for the UK, maybe Churchill just says to hell with general elections, and forces through rigged approval referendums, which he wins year after year. A better option is probably to have the UK lead a more violent and embarrassing late 40’s and 50’s when attempting to keep its Empire together, and with everything just going to shit, a coalition of the Conservatives and Morrisonite Labour could bring in someone like Montgomery to be a strongman with support from parliament.
- I honestly don’t know about the Nordics, but it shouldn’t be too hard to have them all Finlandized, and in the case of Finland, be even more Finlandized, if that makes any sense.
- Austria could be divided in East and West, and in rhe latter the Allies could bring back the old Austrofascists maybe?

 

[Strategos' Risk]

- as for the UK, maybe Churchill just says to hell with general elections, and forces through rigged approval referendums, which he wins year after year. A better option is probably to have the UK lead a more violent and embarrassing late 40’s and 50’s when attempting to keep its Empire together, and with everything just going to shit, a coalition of the Conservatives and Morrisonite Labour could bring in someone like Montgomery to be a strongman with support from parliament.

Still wondering how the British could have had a more "empire or bust" mentality like other Europeans did.

Could the British have fought themselves over Indian independence?

Or other decolonial struggles? In this other thread about how could the Western Bloc have gone authoritarian in the Cold War, it seems like a chief cause is usually over polarization and political in-fighting caused by how to handle decolonization. (Or maybe deimperialization. Is that a word? It...

www.alternatehistory.com

The State of East Indonesia (a republic) and East Sumatra (a federative sultanates like British Malaya) held long enough until August 1950 as they're the first areas liberated by the Allies in the end of WW2 and has garnered enough supporters to make the government sustainable, despite the presence of the pro-Republican groups at its government.

Makes sense. Looks like the other states were mostly parts of Java, which would inevitably be defeated by the Republic, or Borneo, which I assume was less developed. I have to wonder if any of those regions besides South Moluccas could have attempted a long-lasting insurgency, but they had particular incentive because they were so religiously different and had such close ties to the Dutch, and had strong participation in the Royal Netherlands military. I suppose the modern Aceh movement is adjacent to East Sumatra.

 

[Kosaki_MacTavish]

Makes sense. Looks like the other states were mostly parts of Java, which would inevitably be defeated by the Republic, or Borneo, which I assume was less developed.

Naah, they simply keeled over by the popular pressure after the attempted coup by Raymond Westerling in January 1950. As i have said above, the other 18 constituent states buckled over in just two months. Some of them were quite developed economically, but all of them were not politically developed unlike East Sumatra and East Indonesia.

I suppose the modern Aceh movement is adjacent to East Sumatra.

Yes, the ulemas there under Japaness-trained PUSA (led by Daud Beureueh) supported the Republic as they have toppled the pro-Dutch aristocrats (the same kind as the seven sultanates in East Sumatra). But the ensuing disagreement with the Republic over an unwritten promise of a religious, regional autonomy sparked a rebellion lasted from 1953-1962 and 1976-2005.

 

[gradje]

Still wondering how the British could have had a more "empire or bust" mentality like other Europeans did.

Could the British have fought themselves over Indian independence?

Or other decolonial struggles? In this other thread about how could the Western Bloc have gone authoritarian in the Cold War, it seems like a chief cause is usually over polarization and political in-fighting caused by how to handle decolonization. (Or maybe deimperialization. Is that a word? It...

www.alternatehistory.com

India is perhaps the obvious target "to keep", but the Middle East may be the better target for Imperializing. It fits with classic British strategy regarding the containement of Russian southwards expansion anyways.

 

[The Wooksta!]

There were mutinies by RAF personnel in India in 1945/46. Mainly conscripts, they wanted to be demobbed and go home, they saw themselves being used for Imperial reasons, to hold onto India and wanted no part of it.

 

[Tsar Nicholas The Cringe]

Okay, to try and get back on topic, let me rephrase my question: Are there any post-1945 PODs that could have led to a dramatic degradation in civil rights, the rule of law, political pluralism, and the electoral process in the core western powers? (Meaning much worse than today.)

(Aside from May 58, of course.)

It's hard to say, but I will say that even in Western democracies like America, civil liberties were always shaky during that period.

In America, at least, you had McCarthyism, the FBI infiltrating civil rights organizations and the communism party, J. Edgar Hoover's psychotically antagonistic attitude to MLK, the violent reaction in Southern states to pro-civil rights legislation, the war on drugs, the Philadelphia police bombing a black neighborhood, CIA shenanigans, etc. I'd say there was always a chance for America to become more draconian, but I think the POD would have to be some race or protest movement going so badly that the government thinks it has to be draconian.

But there are a couple of TLs that depict an authoritarian America.

A World of Laughter, A World of Tears, depicts Walt Disney becoming President in 1953. Long story short, Disney's political naivete means he ends up damaging the civil rights movement to the degree that it creates a cycle of violence in which civil rights activists become more violent and the government more draconian until blacks are subjected to actual apartheid laws. A friggin' Nazi, George Lincoln Rockwell, becomes a senator from Virginia, and the racist John Stennis becomes President. It also features Orson Welles making a Batman movie, Goldwater and Nixon as heroes for civil liberties, Disney fans becoming Hitler Youth, and Bill Clinton being the head of the SLCP.

Fear Loathing and Gumbo and Rumsfeldia depicts an America degenerating into hypercapitalist tyranny and later totalitarian theocracy because a governor from Louisiana ran for President in 1972, causing a constitutional crisis that led to Spiro Agnew becoming President, the economic problems of the 1970s becoming much worse, Mao's nephew dealing crack, and Donald Rumsfeld effectively being an anarcho-capitalist Pinochet.

In both cases, the racial, political, and economic problems of America become much worse, radicalizing OTL people into doing things they didn't do in our timeline and opening the door for bigger crazies to enter the halls of power.

So a TL where this happens has to feature an OTL event happening, but its consequences end up damaging America even more.

 

[NorthTension]

Austria could be divided in East and West, and in rhe latter the Allies could bring back the old Austrofascists maybe?

wouldnt it just need to be the ÖVF in power still like OTL?

 

[CalBear]

View attachment 886887
I'd say that when the core countries had no qualm about killing some political opponents (Malcolm X...), invading countries that seem to deviate from the line (Latin America for the US, Western Africa for France) and such things, democracy through the 60's to 80's was pretty flawed in Western Countries, at least for France, the US, and AFAIK Italy

Don't flog conspiracy theories unless you are fully prepared to back them up with established, well documented facts.

 

[lukedalton]

I also don't think Italy was single-party. Stacked by NATO, yes, but the DC didn't create a one-party state like the LDP.

The DC was the biggest italian party but never had the absolute majority to govern so he always operated in coalition

 

[Tanc49]

Don't flog conspiracy theories unless you are fully prepared to back them up with established, well documented facts.

Apologies!

 

[Ijon Tichy]

If that happened Ian Paisley would receive lauds as the great anti-terror leader. If he has any sense, he will cool the rhetoric.

The awful thing about Paisley is that though he was indeed a bad lot, if he had not been in the position he was in, his shoes would have been filled by someone even worse.

Someone like Bill Craig, who had been (if memory serves) Home Secretary (i.e. minister of justice) at Stormont, before founding his own Vanguard Unionist Party, and saying things like "I have men behind me who are ready to kill". Craig's forgotten now, but between the balloon going up in 1969 and the UWC strike in '74 he was a major player in Norn Iron politics.

Paisley was actually careful with his rhetoric: he helped create a climate of fear in which people were ready to kill their neighbours, but he never actually said "go out and kill your neighbours". He went right up to the line, but never went over it. Craig, on the other hand. . .

 

[Tsar Nicholas The Cringe]

The awful thing about Paisley is that though he was indeed a bad lot, if he had not been in the position he was in, his shoes would have been filled by someone even worse.

Someone like Bill Craig, who had been (if memory serves) Home Secretary (i.e. minister of justice) at Stormont, before founding his own Vanguard Unionist Party, and saying things like "I have men behind me who are ready to kill". Craig's forgotten now, but between the balloon going up in 1969 and the UWC strike in '74 he was a major player in Norn Iron politics.

Paisley was actually careful with his rhetoric: he helped create a climate of fear in which people were ready to kill their neighbours, but he never actually said "go out and kill your neighbours". He went right up to the line, but never went over it. Craig, on the other hand. . .

You give the impression that the Troubles had the potential to become as horrible as Lebanon or something.

How bad were the OTL Troubles? Was it Detroit 1967 horrible? Was it years of lead? And how oppressive was the British government toward the Catholic community?

John De Lorean was confident in Northern Ireland to build his factory there. Obviously, British government subsidies played a role, but if he had confidence in NI, surely things weren't that bad?

 

[Ijon Tichy]

You give the impression that the Troubles had the potential to become as horrible as Lebanon or something.

How bad were the OTL Troubles? Was it Detroit 1967 horrible? Was it years of lead? And how oppressive was the British government toward the Catholic community?

John De Lorean was confident in Northern Ireland to build his factory there. Obviously, British government subsidies played a role, but if he had confidence in NI, surely things weren't that bad?

The possible degeneration of the Northern Irish situation into something resembling Lebanon or Yugoslavia was taken seriously throughout the conflict. It never got that bad, but the violence was of a duration greater than any riot in Detroit or a similar city, and the casualties dwarfed those of the "anno di piombi". Belfast may not have become another Beirut or Sarajevo, but. . .

De Lorean was a cocaine addict, I would not cite him as a rational risk assessor.

How oppressed were the Catholic minority? This is the key question. No, not as oppressed as the Black and non-white majority in South Africa, certainly. Oppressed enough to delegitimise the state, producing an initially non-violent protest movement (modelled on the US Civil Rights movement) which inspired a violent backlash by the state and the majority, producing a shooting war in which thousands died? Yes.

Which brings us back to the key point in the OP. Most western countries were too complex for naked authoritarianism to work. Where states or regimes did resort to such methods, they signed their own death warrant - internment without trial in Northern Ireland was intended to quash opposition to the regime, but it only drove recruitment to the anti-state forces. From its inception in 1922, the old Northern Irish regime was a police state - but one that had the outward forms of a pluralist liberal democracy. Authoritarianism in the west, this implies, would always be case of the iron fist in the velvet glove.

 

[Tsar Nicholas The Cringe]

The possible degeneration of the Northern Irish situation into something resembling Lebanon or Yugoslavia was taken seriously throughout the conflict. It never got that bad, but the violence was of a duration greater than any riot in Detroit or a similar city, and the casualties dwarfed those of the "anno di piombi". Belfast may not have become another Beirut or Sarajevo, but. . .

De Lorean was a cocaine addict, I would not cite him as a rational risk assessor.

How oppressed were the Catholic minority? This is the key question. No, not as oppressed as the Black and non-white majority in South Africa, certainly. Oppressed enough to delegitimise the state, producing an initially non-violent protest movement (modelled on the US Civil Rights movement) which inspired a violent backlash by the state and the majority, producing a shooting war in which thousands died? Yes.

Which brings us back to the key point in the OP. Most western countries were too complex for naked authoritarianism to work. Where states or regimes did resort to such methods, they signed their own death warrant - internment without trial in Northern Ireland was intended to quash opposition to the regime, but it only drove recruitment to the anti-state forces. From its inception in 1922, the old Northern Irish regime was a police state - but one that had the outward forms of a pluralist liberal democracy. Authoritarianism in the west, this implies, would always be case of the iron fist in the velvet glove.

So you feel the worst authoritarian could get during the Cold War are laws that undermine the rule of law but do with the law more or less intact? And that an actual seizure of power by an authoritarian force wouldn't occur?

 

[Sully]

You give the impression that the Troubles had the potential to become as horrible as Lebanon or something.

How bad were the OTL Troubles? Was it Detroit 1967 horrible? Was it years of lead? And how oppressive was the British government toward the Catholic community?

John De Lorean was confident in Northern Ireland to build his factory there. Obviously, British government subsidies played a role, but if he had confidence in NI, surely things weren't that bad?

What you have to remember is that even though the Troubles themselves lasted for something like 30 years, it peaked in the early 70s. In 1972 nearly 500 people were killed and 5,000 injured in an area of just 1.5 million people.

And politically it was the most sensitive timeframe as well. The old Northern Ireland Parliament and its special police forces had been wound up - and replaced by direct rule from London and the British Army being deployed en masse. Nearly 2,000 people had been interned by 1975.

The first attempt at a power-sharing settlement failed miserably in 1974. Not only that, hundreds of thousands of loyalists had protested against it and brought the country to a standstill. Many of them thought they were slowly being handed over to Dublin bit by bit. On the nationalist side, the anger from internment and Bloody Sunday drove massive numbers of people into the PIRA.

When the Sunningdale settlement collapsed, it seemed like the situation was hopeless. And it was genuinely feared that the British Government would "disengage" from Northern Ireland, and everyone (other than diehard republicans) knew that this would lead to, at best, a complete breakdown in law and order, and at worse, a full-scale civil war with mass ethnic cleansing (that would presumably spill over into the Republic of Ireland as well).

By the time of DoLerean and the 80s war weariness had set in and the situation became what you might call a "low-level insurgency". But the conflict obviously persisted for many more years and flared up again at various points (particularly after the Hunger Strikes and the Anglo-Irish Agreement).

 

[Brak]

Okay, to try and get back on topic, let me rephrase my question: Are there any post-1945 PODs that could have led to a dramatic degradation in civil rights, the rule of law, political pluralism, and the electoral process in the core western powers? (Meaning much worse than today.)

(Aside from May 58, of course.)

but without a watergate scandal